From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0230F1F859 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 19:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932584AbcHITTu (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:19:50 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63611 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932207AbcHITTs (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:19:48 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27EB34319; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:19:46 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=TlzoOFLwFMPRUkGK75ergxSr//o=; b=kbt5Uw ws2s+eUVH2whHyxpvDn1UrIYEnAD33DeivDl+XpGCvTYI6hXEYKm3NL6Gef+cdTS GHZpoZNm2lwtXfCqjxr3cYLf5Zt2BDGFcTI4iVaL2AaYBSlfa2e8P+DIkYEBUdJB 1rPW1or3FddjL427YZJZGbhZt6OUgR/q5XsPs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=DteeMoC9tbzsn79VSu/lNvXXHBsJ3ZXb K0NDCMmmHaeeAkRe+u2JOMYy77mGdSD7ceXyDXQ1y/c8waNK6rlVJaKfI9wF5xnZ PkoVbnTMVKRyCVkEDBPfcdtKaD5kfef0BV00btApITGYXeXP/3/scet1Iwa4Z7eO qaCbM2dKGjo= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BC234318; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E2AA34317; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:19:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Michael Haggerty , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Richard Ipsum , Eric Wong , Josh Triplett , Lars Schneider , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors References: <6c937f79-2b82-619d-51fe-adccbe09bd66@alum.mit.edu> <3055f063-c9c1-0bf5-99bd-08256c253d33@alum.mit.edu> <20160809113703.57irthzzpg6j3dmv@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160809175018.p3bwnqjwz44t2xnb@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 12:19:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160809175018.p3bwnqjwz44t2xnb@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:50:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3BA8B3C0-5E66-11E6-905A-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:34:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It may be a good UI that is optimized for drive-by contributors. It >> is just that it is not very well suited (compared to mailing list >> discussions) to conduct high-volume exchange of ideas and changes >> efficiently. > > I think that's something to ponder; can we have a workflow where > drive-by contributors can use something that has a lower learning/setup > curve, but long-term contributors might opt for something more powerful? > > I think SubmitGit is a step in that direction. Yes, agreed 100% with that. The author of the tool must be praised by getting added to the Cc: line in this discussion ;-) > It does still require > switching to the mailing list for subsequent conversation, though. It > would be interesting to see something like SubmitGit that puts its own > email in the "From", and that processes email replies into PR comments, > and then subsequent PR comments into emails (i.e., part of my "dream tool" > from earlier). It's not clear to me whether the result would just end up > being irritating for both sides to use (because it doesn't _quite_ > conform to the norms of each format). But it would be fun to find out. Perhaps. I do not know if I like that second and subsequent steps for SubmitGit, but its first step as currently deployed I am very happy with.